This is exactly what I'm talking about. You sink all this time into these long-winded responses, assembling all these quote snippets from across the thread, and yet you don't even bother to say anything interesting. This approach clearly isn't working out for you. And really, you should know that insults alone aren't going to get a rise out of people who know you're just pulling their leg - it's not as though they'll forget you're trolling if you just insult them long enough. So, rather than than than these mountains of vague bullshiat you've been posting (which you'll be lucky for anybody to even read halfway through let alone get suckered into actually responding), you should try keeping it short, right to the point, and specific enough that there's actually something in there to respond to.

You had a great chance with the "unions" angle you were working on - if you'd done it right, it would have been hilarious (to those in the know) while still retaining the frustratingly obvious wrongness necessary to get bites. It's probably too late for you to get back on it now, but you should keep it in mind for the next thread.

back to that again I see.. WTF is wrong with you? Seriously, I think you're mentally ill. No wait, I settled that in a previous thread.

Biological Ali:So, rather than than than these mountains of vague bullshiat you've been posting (which you'll be lucky for anybody to even read halfway through let alone get suckered into actually responding)

It's hard to respond to a post of substance, I take it? You haven't done so all day. You just yammer on about how hard it is to follow a thought, acting like everyone else is somehow less intelligent than you the whole while.

Biological Ali:you should try keeping it short, right to the point, and specific enough that there's actually something in there to respond to.

Translation, "please keep your responses to simple bullet points so I don't have to present a well thought argument, I like simple, small concepts."

Biological Ali:You had a great chance with the "unions" angle you were working on - if you'd done it right, it would have been hilarious (to those in the know) while still retaining the frustratingly obvious wrongness necessary to get bites.

"I'm back to calling you a troll again, because I ran out of shiat to say, and I'm pretty farking dumb"

If anyone actually cares to see where this argument actually ended, please scroll up. Ali, you're the dumbest person in the thread and only you aren't aware of the fact.

I'm trying to be straight with you here, but you've got to be a little more receptive than that. Now I appreciate the lengths you're going to in order to stay in character but I have to say, it's a wasted effort. Apart from the issues with your material itself (which I mentioned earlier; no point repeating myself), there's the fact that nobody else is going to read these exchanges, what with them being so far removed from the parts of the conversation that they might actually be interested in. So why even bother making these long posts when the only person reading them knows your shtick?

Alternatively, if these posts are solely for my benefit (unlikely, but who knows, maybe you really are that committed), why not at least try to make them funny? Right now you're in that awkward middle ground where your ambivalence (whether it's trying too hard to do everything, or not trying hard enough to do something) is preventing you from accomplishing anything meaningful.

Biological Ali:there's the fact that nobody else is going to read these exchanges, what with them being so far removed from the parts of the conversation that they might actually be interested in.

That's your goal, forum slider.

Biological Ali:So why even bother making these long posts when the only person reading them knows your shtick?

Because someone might, which is exactly why you keep posting the nonsensical bullshiat you do, but people can always scroll up and see how little substance you have, while you portray your superiority. I presented a well reasoned argument, you have name calling, as usual.

Biological Ali:Alternatively, if these posts are solely for my benefit (unlikely, but who knows, maybe you really are that committed), why not at least try to make them funny?

I don't care about you in the slightest, I only care to refute the lies you tell. Make yet another alt and I'll respond to it in kind.

Biological Ali:Right now you're in that awkward middle ground where your ambivalence (whether it's trying too hard to do everything, or not trying hard enough to do something) is preventing you from accomplishing anything meaningful.

I destroyed your position several hours ago, you haven't said anything of substance to respond since then. What meaningful dialogue do I need to bring when your only response to my every word is "You're a troll, derp, derp"?

I don't care about you in the slightest, I only care to refute the lies you tell. Make yet another alt and I'll respond to it in kind.

Okay, I've got to say, these bits were actually pretty funny. But the reply as a whole is still too long - it basically reads like a rough draft. You're getting slightly better at giving your posts an absurd edge (rather than merely being wrong and obnoxious), so that's good. The next step now is to learn how to work out your good lines and stick with just those, rather than including a bunch of filler material that just distracts and lessens the overall effect.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:Trying to influence the general public, or part of the general public, with respect to elections, legislative matters, or referendums (also known as grass roots lobbying).

Miss something?

BraveNewCheneyWorld:A tax-exempt trade association, labor union, or similar organization is considered to be engaging in grass roots lobbying if it contacts prospective members or calls upon its own members to contact their employees and customers for the purpose of urging such persons to communicate with their elected state or Congressional representatives to support the promotion, defeat, or repeal of legislation that is of direct interest to the organization.

Note, candidates are not legislation. I'll agree, the case of a Church pastor speaking out against (say) a referendum and calling it's members to vote a particular way on it is trickier, but there's apparently a legally non-trivial difference from candidate or blanket party endorsement.

skullkrusher:no I was referring to the hypothetical presented by another poster.

Hokay.

Biological Ali:Union dues are deductible only as work-related expenses (and even that only applies to dues that aren't being used for political activities). If anybody (regardless of whether or not they're members of the union) makes some voluntary contribution to the union, it is not deductible. This would be the case for any 501(c)(5) organization.

True; it's possible. I should point out though that my assessment is based not on the mere fact that he says things that aren't correct, but rather, the almost comical way he follows up on comments that point out the error. It seems to be a recurring pattern: say something that's wrong but nonetheless seems like the kind of honest mistake anybody can make and then refuse to budge from it, drawing increasing amounts of frustration from the people trying to set the record straight. And, of course, the insults.

I could be wrong of course, but that's just my educated guess.

abb3w:Note, candidates are not legislation. I'll agree, the case of a Church pastor speaking out against (say) a referendum and calling it's members to vote a particular way on it is trickier, but there's apparently a legally non-trivial difference from candidate or blanket party endorsement.

It helps to read the entire section at length; it provides a list of everything that can't be done with tax-deductible dues, which includes just about every major kind of political activism, and notes at the end that ordinary contributions (as opposed to dues) are not deductible regardless of what they're being used for.Deduction not allowed for dues used for political or legislative activities. A taxpayer cannot deduct the part of dues or other payments to a business league, trade association, labor union, or similar organization that is for any of the following activities.

1. Influencing legislation.

2. Participating or intervening in a political campaign for, or against, any candidate for public office.

3. Trying to influence the general public, or part of the general public, with respect to elections, legislative matters, or referendums (also known as grass roots lobbying).

4. Communicating directly with certain executive branch officials to try to influence their official actions or positions.

See Dues Used for Lobbying or Political Activities under Required Disclosures in chapter 2 for more information.

Exception for local legislation. Members can deduct dues (or assessments) to an organization that are for expenses of:

Appearing before, submitting statements to, or sending communications to members of a local council or similar governing body with respect to legislation or proposed legislation of direct interest to the member, or

Communicating information between the member and the organization with respect to local legislation or proposed legislation of direct interest to the organization or the member.

Legislation or proposed legislation is of direct interest to a taxpayer if it will, or can reasonably be expected to, affect the taxpayer's trade or business.

De minimis exception. In-house expenditures of $2,000 or less for the year for activities (1) - (4) listed earlier will not prevent a deduction for dues if the dues meet all other tests to be deductible as a business expense.Grass roots lobbying. A tax-exempt trade association, labor union, or similar organization is considered to be engaging in grass roots lobbying if it contacts prospective members or calls upon its own members to contact their employees and customers for the purpose of urging such persons to communicate with their elected state or Congressional representatives to support the promotion, defeat, or repeal of legislation that is of direct interest to the organization. Any dues or assessments directly related to such activities are not deductible by the taxpayer, since the individuals being contacted, who are not members of the organization, are a segment of the general public.

Tax treatment of donations. Contributions to organizations described in this section are not deductible as charitable contributions on the donor's federal income tax return. They may be deductible as trade or business expenses if ordinary and necessary in the conduct of the taxpayer's business.

The restrictions for 501(c)(3) organizations appear to be somewhat more lenient and vague, barring them from making lobbying a "substantial" part of their activities. Here's some fairly comprehensive discussions on the restrictions on both lobbying and political activity. The bit about supporting particular candidates appears to be quite clear though, and at least in theory a 501(c)(3) organization would not be able to intervene on behalf of any candidate (even one who is running unopposed) without it being a violation against their tax-exempt status.

mrshowrules:I wish Hatetheists/Liberals would just stop beating around the bush and let everyone know that they just want the US to effectively have an atheocracy like communist Russia/China/North Korea.